Admiral Ins. v. L'Union des Assur. de Paris

2 Citing cases

  1. Cigar Ass'n of Am. v. City of Philadelphia

    500 F. Supp. 3d 428 (E.D. Pa. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    Thus, had the General Assembly wished to preempt only the five narrow areas in § 6305, it could and presumably would have used similar language. Courts often reject an interpretation of a statute where the legislature has elsewhere used different language to reach that result. SeeAdmiral Ins. Co. v. L'Union des Assurances de Paris Incendie Accidents, 758 F. Supp. 293, 295 (E.D. Pa. 1991) (rejecting an interpretation where the legislature "knows how to say" that concept by using different language); Germantown Cab Co. v. Phila. Parking Auth. , 614 Pa. 133, 36 A.3d 105, 114 (2012) (same). The General Assembly knows how to preempt only the areas expressly covered in another section, but chose not to do that in § 301.

  2. Lopez del Valle v. Gob. de la Cap.

    855 F. Supp. 34 (D.P.R. 1994)   Cited 5 times

    removal of "any civil action" brought in state court against foreign state, authorizes sovereign third-party defendant to remove entire suit, including main claims, rather than merely third-party claim against sovereign), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 962, 111 S.Ct. 1587, 113 L.Ed.2d 651 (1991); Teledyne, Inc. v. Kone Corp., 892 F.2d 1404, 1408-10 (9th Cir. 1989) (statutory language and legislative history of the FSIA reveal that the FSIA gives foreign states the right to a federal forum, and the right to take non-consenting co-defendants along with them); Arango v. Guzman Travel Advisors Corp., 621 F.2d 1371, 1375-77 (5th Cir. 1980) (removal by a foreign state defendant under § 1441(d) operates to remove the entire action against all defendants, foreign and non-foreign alike); contra Alifieris, 523 F. Supp. at 1192 (all claims outside the third-party complaint against the foreign state were remanded to state court) and Admiral Ins. Co. v. L'Union des Assurances de Paris Incendie Accidents, 758 F. Supp. 293 (E.D.Pa. 1991) (same). As the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit states in Surinam Airways, 974 F.2d at 1259, the phrase "any civil action" in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d) "was clearly meant to grant removal jurisdiction over more than just the `claims' asserted against a foreign state."